I think that this is a good suggestion. A friendly amendment would be
to draw a cloud around parts of the diagram that related to a specific
specification. I will have a go at doing both.
Frank
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 06:51 AM, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
wrote:
> Well, that's one possibility.Â I was thinking more along the lines of
> taking the complicated diagramÂ -- the one with Agent, Service, Legal
> Entity, Goal etc -- and doing something like coloring boxes to
> indicate spec residence.Â For example, a box could be green if there
> is a spec, orange if there is a WG/TC and blank if not.Â Or the
> name(s) of the spec(s) could be put into the boxes with a similar
> color code.
> Â
> I'm not suggesting that the complicated diagram should have these as a
> normal part -- I'm suggesting using it as a template for a special
> "spec coverage" diagram.
> Â
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:50 AM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture
>
> I'm not entirely sure, either, although this is consistent with the
> intention of one of the original diagrams I produced (before the
> "triangle" diagrams) -- as attached.
> Â
> I know this isn't perfect, and may not be what we Martin was referring
> to when he said we needed a "stack" diagram, but maybe we could review
> this again and think about improving it toward becoming this type of
> diagram (which by the way I agree we should have, if that wasn't clear
> before).
> Â
> Eric
> Â
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:26 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture
>
> Â
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:13 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Mapping Specs to the Architecture
>
> I had a chat with TimBL about the WS Arch work in which he asked a
> very interesting question.Â He wanted to know whether we were
> producing a diagram that would make clear what parts of the
> architecture currently have specs in place, what parts have specs in
> progress and what parts need specs but there is nothing in sight.Â Â Â
>
> Â I say that kind of thing in "elavator speeches" describing what we
> do, but I guess we've never really talked about it, made it a
> requirement, or Â put it in the document.Â Maybe it's time to do so
> :-)Â It would be a good cross-check tbat we cover the ground defined
> by all the specs out there, and would have good PR value.
>